Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Havering and Thurrock are neighbouring boroughs, and we are Essex through and through. He is very lucky, because his constituency does not have London-wide policies imposed on it, so it avoids ULEZ and planning interference from the Mayor of London. It is free to make its own decisions—in fact, as a unitary authority. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and we are certainly on the same page on this issue.

We barely see policemen in Romford. They are mostly seconded into inner London areas, and this is compounded by the tri-borough arrangement that merges Havering, Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge. We now get even fewer police on the streets of Havering.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman? In all the time I have known him, he has always been British to the core—there is absolutely no doubt about that. Although I am a supporter of devolution —many matters are devolved in Northern Ireland— I understand the complexity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that devolution is only as useful as the people in place to carry out the job? Effective people are the key. Does he further agree that devolution must have community support and that, regardless of whether it is in Essex or Strangford, the general public must always have the final say?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right: any type of devolution has to have the consent of the people. I have to say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not believe that the current Greater London devolution arrangement really has the consent of people in Havering. I think that if there were to be a referendum tomorrow, they would overwhelmingly vote to leave Greater London and be a unitary authority, but maybe there are other options. That is why this debate about Havering borough and Essex devolution is so pertinent today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my arguments.

To return to what I was saying about the police, all but one of our police stations have been closed, and my constituents are deeply unhappy with the lack of police cover we receive, despite the huge amount we contribute financially to the Greater London Authority. This is no fault of the dedicated officers who form the day-to-day, rank-and-file backbone of our local police operation. The local force is dedicated and determined to respond to and prevent instances of criminality that blight the locality, but they are undermined by a lack of the resources that we in Havering pay for, but simply do not receive. Indeed, if you speak to my constituents, they will tell you that they believe Havering residents are in effect subsidising inner London areas and, through the Greater London Authority, funding what I believe has become a London-wide bureaucracy in City Hall and associated London-wide quangos. It is hard to see how the people of Havering benefit from that, and more often than not, it has no relevance to local people in my borough whatsoever.

The reason for my Adjournment debate is to ask the Minister to please allow us to look at alternatives. Now is the time to consider Havering’s future. With devolution for what is termed Greater Essex now being implemented, this must surely be the right moment to examine a change that would give the people of Romford, Hornchurch, Upminster and Rainham hope that we could be part of something that better suits our local needs and goes with the grain of our historical identity. If the Government truly believe in genuine devolution, I hope the Minister will agree that local people should determine what is best for them, and a borough such as Havering must surely have the freedom to consider all options for our future. I request that the Government open up a meaningful conversation with the people of Havering about devolution for Essex that could include Havering, so that we can look sensibly and in detail at ideas for change.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. The freedom travel pass for pensioners is often cited as one of the benefits of being part of Greater London, as if the Mayor of London provides it to us for free, which is not the case. My borough pays millions to buy in to this scheme. It has always done so and will always continue to do so. We pay millions of pounds for the privilege, but I will always defend and support the freedom pass as our older folk deserve the benefits it gives them.

Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell]

I respect the hon. Member’s point, but she did say that we should pay what we owe. All kinds of arguments can be put forward about what we owe, but it is a matter of opinion. Today we should bring unity and look for solutions, rather than making this a political issue. We can achieve more for developing countries if we work together, rather than looking at where things have gone wrong or right in history and at who may owe what, depending on what is going on in the world today. I do not think that will get us very far, so we should move on from that and focus on how we restructure the repayment of debt, and how we can develop a better system globally to deal with this issue, rather than looking too far back into history.

It has been clear to me, right from when I stood for Parliament for the first time, that this issue needs to be addressed. That has been confirmed by the passion that hon. Members have shown in today’s debate. Debt relief deserves serious consideration, and the Opposition recognise that. Unsustainable debt burdens can be huge and significant impediments to economic development and growth, trapping nations in a cycle of poverty. However, I believe that we must approach this matter in a responsible way, with both caution and pragmatism.

If pursued, debt relief must be conditional and tied to a strong policy of fiscal responsibility measures, so I hope the Minister will provide assurances that any recipient countries would be expected to implement sound economic policies, tackle corruption and take steps to prevent future over-borrowing. I do not think the Minister can disagree that without those safeguards, we risk creating a system in which there is financial mismanagement in perpetuity. We should focus on rewarding the expense of responsible governance. Making the hard-pressed British taxpayer foot the bill is not acceptable to most of our constituents, and we need solutions. We need to solve these problems and not see this as a one-way street.

If the United Kingdom taxpayer’s money is involved, I want the Government to tell us how they will ensure that such relief also serves the interests of the British people. During these difficult economic times, we must justify every single penny spent by the Government and always be mindful that it is our constituents’ money, not the Government’s. Debt relief must become not an open-ended commitment, but a strategic tool that strengthens bilateral ties and ensures geopolitical stability.

I hope the Minister can tell us how the Government intend to prioritise sustainable development, and what mechanisms are in place to monitor that. I also hope she will agree that the focus should be not on perpetual aid or blanket debt forgiveness, but on fostering economic self-sufficiency. That is the only sustainable way forward. We must also consider how the United Kingdom can play a meaningful part in helping low-income countries to develop their domestic industries, improve resource management and reduce their reliance on foreign debt. Without those structural changes, would debt relief simply serve as a temporary fix, or would she prefer to have a system that offers a sustainable solution? That is what the Opposition want.

[Jim Shannon]

I would never wish to be anything other than supportive of what the hon. Gentleman says, but everyone who has spoken so far has mentioned the charities and groups that contribute and sometimes fill the gap. May I ask, respectfully, if some recognition could be given to those groups?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member touched on this in his speech earlier, as did the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes. That is another new constituency name, and I think it includes Chippenham. Is that part of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency?

Respiratory Health

Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

That will be on the record.

[Jim Shannon]

I will never get it wrong again. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for his contribution. Air quality has been a massive issue for him since he came to this House; he has reiterated that over and over again. I am hopeful that he will have the success for which he hopes. He referred to deprivation and low incomes as factors. Priority for respiratory health is needed, as the Minister confirmed. The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) rightly referred to the need for regular asthma check-ups.

It is always a pleasure to work alongside the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). She and I have talked about this issue over the past five or six years. It was a pleasure to hear her contribution, which included first-hand evidence from her surgery. I agree that we need improved access to diagnostics and medical help.

I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for her personal contribution; nothing tells a story better than a personal contribution. As the Minister says, we hope that her family members are able to deal with their issues in a positive fashion, and hopefully the medical care will be there as well. The hon. Lady referred to how the disease drastically changes lives, with some people being unable to walk. She also focused on charity work, which is really important.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to air pollution, as his party has done for many years. He underlined the problems and the impact on children, and he referred to our old housing stock. These are critical issues. We sometimes forget about farmer’s lung, but those who live in the countryside do not, because it is a big issue. He also referred to RSV, the impact on pregnant women and the importance of vaccination.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), reminded us that his first job related to this issue. That has allowed him to make an incredible input into the debate: we thank him for everything that he has put forward. It is fair to say that the last Government had a plan, but a more holistic approach is needed. I thank him for his role on the APPG. Prevention is absolutely the way to go, and data is important. He also mentioned spirometry.

The Minister responded in excellent fashion. I wrote down all the things she said. I thank her for committing to a meeting. I am sure that her colleague the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) will be watching the debate and will respond. She referred to her former job and vocation, in which she had dealings with COPD directly. I am also grateful for the roundtable commitment. The Government have committed to a smoke-free society, on which a Bill is pending: that will be important in preventing lung cancer, especially for children. She also referred to damp in homes, an incredibly important issue that comes up all the time in the main Chamber.

The Minister responded very positively, if I may say so, to all the issues on which we required answers, including vaccinations, energy efficiency and fuel poverty. The respiratory network across the nation deals with COPD and major contributors to respiratory health issues, and the Government are committed to it. Respiratory health and biologics are priorities for the Government. It is not often that we have a debate with so much input from everyone, and yet we have a Minister who answers all the questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered respiratory health.